Customer Reviews

Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I am now translating this book into Japanese. It is aimed primarily at Evangelicals who affirm biblical inerrancy, yet also feel compelled to try to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the views of modern science. Older, discredited theories of this type -- the "Gap Interpretation" (or "Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation": there is a gap of indeterminate time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which the world of a presumed pre-Adamite race was destroyed and then rebuilt) and the "Day-Age Interpretation" (each "day" is actually a vast amount of time) -- are glossed over; instead Jordan focuses on some of the newer theories now in vogue or coming into vogue among Evangelicals, such as John Sailhamer's "Limited Geography Interpretation," which says that the Genesis creation account actually describes the creation of the land of Canaan, not the whole world. Other Evangelicals interacted with include Bruce K. Waltke, Meredith G., Kline, C. John Collins, Paul H. Seely, Mark Futato, and C. Lee Irons.

As the book's title makes clear, Jordan doesn't think such approaches -- that pit the literary features of Genesis 1 against the plain historical and narrative sense of the text -- are viable. Rather, he thinks the people of God have been correct all along (i.e., for the past 3,000 years) in interpreting Genesis 1 as referring to the creation of the entire universe in six consecutive 24-hour days. He covers all the theories contrary to the traditional reading that are currently popular among Evangelicals and shows how none of them stand up to close scrutiny. He also shows how the presuppositions of unbelieving science make it a weak reed to lean upon, and drives home the point that modern Christians have been too credulous toward, and subtly influenced by, the constructs of unbelieving science, with the result that their worldview is partly orthodox and partly gnostic. ("Gnosticism" meaning a religious perspective that emphasizes Christianity as a religion of ideas rather than as a religion rooted in actual time-based historical events in the physical world.) If the historical factuality of Genesis 1 is suspect, then, ultimately, so is just about everything else that is said to take place in the Bible -- even, for example, the resurrection. Of course, no Bible-believing Christian wants to say *that*, but if the non-historical approach to Genesis 1 is legitimate, then there is no logical barrier to extending that approach to everything else. If all that the Genesis creation account tells us about the first Adam cannot be taken at face value, then what are we to make of statements like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ("For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.") or Romans 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.")? Here we have core doctrines of the Christian faith that are based squarely on the historic factuality of the origin of mankind exactly as described in the Genesis creation account. Take away the historic factuality and the doctrines no longer have any basis, which is precisely why liberal and secular scholars don't believe in those doctrines. Too many Evangelicals are unwittingly trading away their birthright for a mess of respectability in the eyes of an unbelieving world, respectability which will never be granted in any case. Better that we take an uncompromising "hard line" like J. Gresham Machen, whose integrity in a previous generation won the admiration of an unbeliever like H. L. Mencken (If you haven't read Mencken's obituary of Machen in the January 18, 1937 Baltimore Evening Sun, you owe it to yourself to do a search on "Dr. Fundamentalis" and read it.)

There is happy irony, as Jordan shows, in the fact that the traditional "literal" reading of Genesis 1, which takes the whole account at face value as actual history, is also the approach best equipped to mine the full richness of the abundant symbolism and literary structures of Genesis 1. Yes, it is rife with symbols, and yes, it all actually happened just as it is written. Because God is the One at work, the Bible is fully capable of simultaneously being both symbolic and also historically accurate; there is no contradiction in maintaining both. Any reading that attempts to evade the historic factuality of the six-day creation account ends up obscuring much of the symbolism and literary structure of the text.

I decided to translate this book because gnosticism is a rampant problem in the Japanese churches, just as it is in the English-speaking world, and it is sapping the church of vitality. When something is stuck to one's face, one can be totally unaware of it until it is pointed out. The church is in such a predicament today. Gnostic tendencies unconsciously carried over from the non-Christian society around us are so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of modern Christian culture that we are largely unaware of the problem. If the Japanese translation of this book helps a few pastors and seminary students become more thoroughly biblical in their thinking, it will have been worth it.

Finally, to set the record straight: there is nothing less than respect for all of Jordan's adversaries in this book. Anyone reading pp.118-119 carefully will not conclude that Jordan denies general revelation. Jordan never denies "heavens and earth" refers to the entire physical universe; rather, he denies it is improper to treat "heavens" and "earth" separately. The other complaints against Jordan are spurious; e.g., even if Jordan had been able to locate the obscure medieval rabbis cited by Sailhamer, it wouldn't have significantly altered any of the book's conclusions. Also, argument from authority is a no-no.

Jordan defends the traditional reading of the creation account with a command of biblical theology rarely encountered. But Jordan does more. He precisely and convincingly identifies exegetical errors in opposing positions. Moreover, he reveals the subtle influences of gnosticism and false assumptions of "science" which are behind modern interpretations. This is an outstanding contribution.--Rev.James Bordwine, Th.D. I highly recommend this book!

First Things has called James Jordan one of the greatest unknown theologians of the 20th century. In this book, Jordan sets about to look at the creation account in Genesis from a Biblical perspective. The subtitle says the book is a defense of the traditional view, but in actuality it is more of an offensive mounted against a number of the "alternative" theories floating around in more Reformed Evangelical circles like the framework hypothesis and others. He defends the traditional view in taking down these others and revealing that they cannot stand. The last few chapters are then his defense of how he views the first chapters of Genesis.

One of the most innovative and profound insights in the book is his point that the "framework hypothesis" and all the others drive a wedge between reality and literature. They assume that because Genesis is written in a literary pattern that it is therefore not historical. Jordan points out (correctly) that this is a subtle form of gnosticism, the hatred of the physical reality and the love of the ethereal. He then defends the creation account by pointing out the symbolism and narrative patterns, and shows how the God of the Bible is the sort of God who arranges history to run in symbolic patterns for us to find. Thus, he walks the narrow road between historical account (which we arrogant moderns assume has no literary or symbolic dimension) and literature (which we arrogant moderns assume has no historical or "true" dimension).

Simply a fantastic book. He is no fundamentalist, taking everything in a woodenly literal sense, something that I have found many creationists fall into. Instead, he shows the only perspective that does justice to history and to literature is the traditional, six-day creationist position.

I've been taking a class at my local Bible College and my Proff is a day age view creationist, he has had us reading a book by Roth, which is the day age view lined out. This view of creation threw me for a loop. My Pastor requested this book for me to read. I read his copy, and after i was finished I had to get one for myself. James Jordan deals with the text of scripture not what is the latest scientific fad, and I appreciate that. Although I have respect for what Roth is trying to do, he doesn't deal with the text as closely as Jordan does. After reading this book it settled the question in my mind.

I have read only parts of this book and am not qualified to comment on it as a whole. However, the tite, which I have read, is quite inaccurate and misleading which causes me to doubt the accuracy of the book as a whole.

The "traditional" understanding of the first account of creation in Genesis is not that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour periods. This interpretation only became popular as a result of the Reformation and the tendency to interpret various portions of the Bible outside the context of the Bible as a whole, as well as out of context of the preceding fifteen centuries of Christian commentary. It is also a result of the attacks upon Christian thought by modernist thinkers whose works had the affect of driving Protestant biblical interpretation into ever deeper levels of fundamentalism which were foreign to Christianity prior to the sixteenth century.

From the beginning of Christianity the Church Fathers have assigned numerous meanings to the six periods of creation. A literal understanding of the account was generally not adopted due to many obvious reasons that force individuals such as Prof. Jordan to resort to ridiculously awkward positions. The truly traditional manner of interpreting the first creation account in no way diminishes the power of God for whom time is irrevevent, it being part of creation itself. The first creation account witnesses to the fundamental goodness of creation, its origin in the will of God, and the absolute rule of God's Providence throughout time and space. To reduce this creation account to a scientific or historical document is to miss the fundamental message revealed by God.

Not really a very good book. I've read it 2x now, and it's even worse the second time than the first. There are other books you can buy, if you want to explore the earlier chapters of Genesis.

This book is an excellent guide to self discovery; A tool for attaining deeper knowledge of the self. Let's say, for instance that you thought the book was relevant and scholarly, well then it is fairly obvious that you need to go to college, or in some way educate yourself.